Whatever I had planned to do this morning was delayed as I worked my way through this remarkable post. Incredibly helpful.
How does the U.S. education system factor into the current challenges (and future opportunities)? You mention how many expert engineers and academics (professors/grad students) China dedicated to the UHVDC build-out. Are we in good shape here, or is this another looming problem?
There's definitely a need to invest in this area. We have many very smart and talented electrical engineers but I don't think enough. I think it energy is a bit like CS ten years ago. I think the market will respond
What struck me is that many of the pieces needed to move forward already seem to be on the table. If interregional transmission and the institutions required to build it are indeed among the largest constraints, then the challenge becomes less about discovering the problem and more about organizing around it.
One thing I appreciate is that you don't simply contrast China and the US. You also identify real advantages in the American system. That seems important because any durable solution will likely begin by honestly naming both the strengths and weaknesses of our existing structure.
If broader bipartisan support for grid modernization continues to emerge, perhaps the next step is exactly that: using those advantages and disadvantages as the starting point for negotiations at the federal, state, and local levels rather than assuming we must choose between the American model and the Chinese one.
The institutional architecture may be the bottleneck, but it is also the part we can choose to redesign.
Grid modernization was mentioned a bit in the 2020 campaign and would have been ideal use of federal focus, then Biden dropped it completely in favor of promoting non Tesla EVs and retail charging, then was completely ineffectual on those, also alienating existing national champion Tesla letting Musk wander off to destructive right wing foolishness. Apparently all this was forgotten, you don’t mention it!
"You probably are not reading this piece simply because you love thinking about locational marginal prices and financial transmission rights." Actually I was. Congratulations on an impressive piece of work. Even the Trump-bashing was genuinely funny rather than tedious which is saying something.
I would remove the reference to Germany's nuclear debate; the article you cite is more than two years old which is an eternity in politics. There have been federal elections since then and the voters have had their say. I follow German politics rather closely; "more nuclear power" will not be a vote-winner for the foreseeable future. My five cents' worth of insight on this topic are that the effects of the nuclear phase-out will be much more subtle and indirect. The nuclear phase-out is one driver of the self-inflicted deindustrialization underway in Germany which is a development that voters notice because they lose their jobs. It is not the most important driver and certainly not the only one.
The topic of voting and politics brings me to the real point of this comment. You ask "Does it matter?" and, in a roundabout way, give the answer yourself: "Every serious modeling exercise that looks at deep decarbonization, massive electrification, and new demand from data centers and AI reaches the same conclusion: the US needs dramatically more interregional transmission capacity." I have admittedly not thought a lot about the role of "new demand from data centers and AI", but I will hypothesize that "deep decarbonization" and "massive electrification" are largely dependent on the government skewing the playing field in some way (mandates, subsidies, a carbon price - you name it). You imply but do not assert explicitly that the solar and wind build-out in Texas was market-driven; I am not familiar with that topic and therefore refrain from commenting on it specifically, but I have yet to find examples of renewable investment occurring on a genuinely level playing field and on a significant scale.
Decarbonization and, to a large extent, additional electrification are thus driven by public policy. The underlying premise is that the benefits of this policy justify the costs. That benefits ought to outweigh the costs is an assertion that pretty much everyone should be able to agree on. As for what these benefits and costs are and how their value should be assessed is something that reasonable people can disagree on - at least I hope that we can agree that that is something which it just might be legitimate to disagree on. Take away that public policy and the drive to decarbonize and electrify will peter out. In democracies, public policy is ultimately subject to the consent of voters who may at some point decide that the costs and benefits of decarbonization are such as to be inconsistent with "Net Zero by 2050" and similar plans. Then what?
I would suggest considering the possibility that decarbonization and electrification become less, possibly much less important drivers of transmission expansion and assessing what the implications are. I suspect that your analysis would remain essentially unchanged and thus robust to such a change in the political landscape (although solving the problems identified might become less urgent). Thanks again for a most enjoyable and interesting read.
Interesting post. Actually know some of this as an attorney who began his career in industrial facility siting/permitting as a government staff counsel at the New York State Public Service Commission. I was assigned to represent the Staff in several cases seeking permits for high voltage transmission lines and new power plants (still being built in those days c.1980).
My question which I didn’t see addressed. Are Chinese HVDC lines buried in underground trenches contained in oil pressurized pipes, like the way natural gas transmission lines are buried “undergrounded”?
If so, expect minimal public organized opposition.
If not, expect years of public protest and public hearings to stall or defeat most proposals for new large (115-345-765kv) lines because of the huge towers needed to keep the lines at least 60’ above the ground and huge right of way corridors needed for electrical/public health safety.
Very small detail in concept. Huge detail in feasibility in the U.S. where local people expect to have a big say in land use because of home rule laws or just practical politics in a representative democracy.
Not to say undergrounded pressurized conduits are without problems or the superior technology: much more expensive and much harder to service and replace if there are faults: must be dug up and replaced instead of just wires or towers being fairly quickly repaired.
Sorry if you did touch on that detail: article very long and I may have missed it.
Ultra-high-voltage DC transmission usually runs on those big lattice towers you see standing in mountain ranges or out past the suburbs. Inside cities, they switch to different tower types — underground lines aren't great because they're hard to repair and not particularly safe.
the piece about the interconnection queue is the one that hits hardest for AI. the US datacenter buildout is essentially queued behind transmission reform that has been stalled for a decade. China built the grid for centralized industrial load first, then found that the same infrastructure runs 100MW+ datacenters without asking permission from five utility commissions.
not saying the authoritarian shortcut is good policy, but the AI infrastructure gap and the grid gap are the same gap.
Please don't call the China's power lines as "grid"... they are just some "fixed-directional" pipelines..
The author's impression maybe fit China 1990s.. but clearly not 2020s... when the central government (re-)created every order.. including the approval right of almost every generation resources...
"local government more willing to build its own generation"?
Why not? The key issue whether they "can or not", not "willing or not"...
Outstanding work... very much enjoyed reading your essay
Whatever I had planned to do this morning was delayed as I worked my way through this remarkable post. Incredibly helpful.
How does the U.S. education system factor into the current challenges (and future opportunities)? You mention how many expert engineers and academics (professors/grad students) China dedicated to the UHVDC build-out. Are we in good shape here, or is this another looming problem?
There's definitely a need to invest in this area. We have many very smart and talented electrical engineers but I don't think enough. I think it energy is a bit like CS ten years ago. I think the market will respond
Excellent article.
What struck me is that many of the pieces needed to move forward already seem to be on the table. If interregional transmission and the institutions required to build it are indeed among the largest constraints, then the challenge becomes less about discovering the problem and more about organizing around it.
One thing I appreciate is that you don't simply contrast China and the US. You also identify real advantages in the American system. That seems important because any durable solution will likely begin by honestly naming both the strengths and weaknesses of our existing structure.
If broader bipartisan support for grid modernization continues to emerge, perhaps the next step is exactly that: using those advantages and disadvantages as the starting point for negotiations at the federal, state, and local levels rather than assuming we must choose between the American model and the Chinese one.
The institutional architecture may be the bottleneck, but it is also the part we can choose to redesign.
Grid modernization was mentioned a bit in the 2020 campaign and would have been ideal use of federal focus, then Biden dropped it completely in favor of promoting non Tesla EVs and retail charging, then was completely ineffectual on those, also alienating existing national champion Tesla letting Musk wander off to destructive right wing foolishness. Apparently all this was forgotten, you don’t mention it!
"You probably are not reading this piece simply because you love thinking about locational marginal prices and financial transmission rights." Actually I was. Congratulations on an impressive piece of work. Even the Trump-bashing was genuinely funny rather than tedious which is saying something.
I would remove the reference to Germany's nuclear debate; the article you cite is more than two years old which is an eternity in politics. There have been federal elections since then and the voters have had their say. I follow German politics rather closely; "more nuclear power" will not be a vote-winner for the foreseeable future. My five cents' worth of insight on this topic are that the effects of the nuclear phase-out will be much more subtle and indirect. The nuclear phase-out is one driver of the self-inflicted deindustrialization underway in Germany which is a development that voters notice because they lose their jobs. It is not the most important driver and certainly not the only one.
The topic of voting and politics brings me to the real point of this comment. You ask "Does it matter?" and, in a roundabout way, give the answer yourself: "Every serious modeling exercise that looks at deep decarbonization, massive electrification, and new demand from data centers and AI reaches the same conclusion: the US needs dramatically more interregional transmission capacity." I have admittedly not thought a lot about the role of "new demand from data centers and AI", but I will hypothesize that "deep decarbonization" and "massive electrification" are largely dependent on the government skewing the playing field in some way (mandates, subsidies, a carbon price - you name it). You imply but do not assert explicitly that the solar and wind build-out in Texas was market-driven; I am not familiar with that topic and therefore refrain from commenting on it specifically, but I have yet to find examples of renewable investment occurring on a genuinely level playing field and on a significant scale.
Decarbonization and, to a large extent, additional electrification are thus driven by public policy. The underlying premise is that the benefits of this policy justify the costs. That benefits ought to outweigh the costs is an assertion that pretty much everyone should be able to agree on. As for what these benefits and costs are and how their value should be assessed is something that reasonable people can disagree on - at least I hope that we can agree that that is something which it just might be legitimate to disagree on. Take away that public policy and the drive to decarbonize and electrify will peter out. In democracies, public policy is ultimately subject to the consent of voters who may at some point decide that the costs and benefits of decarbonization are such as to be inconsistent with "Net Zero by 2050" and similar plans. Then what?
I would suggest considering the possibility that decarbonization and electrification become less, possibly much less important drivers of transmission expansion and assessing what the implications are. I suspect that your analysis would remain essentially unchanged and thus robust to such a change in the political landscape (although solving the problems identified might become less urgent). Thanks again for a most enjoyable and interesting read.
Interesting post. Actually know some of this as an attorney who began his career in industrial facility siting/permitting as a government staff counsel at the New York State Public Service Commission. I was assigned to represent the Staff in several cases seeking permits for high voltage transmission lines and new power plants (still being built in those days c.1980).
My question which I didn’t see addressed. Are Chinese HVDC lines buried in underground trenches contained in oil pressurized pipes, like the way natural gas transmission lines are buried “undergrounded”?
If so, expect minimal public organized opposition.
If not, expect years of public protest and public hearings to stall or defeat most proposals for new large (115-345-765kv) lines because of the huge towers needed to keep the lines at least 60’ above the ground and huge right of way corridors needed for electrical/public health safety.
Very small detail in concept. Huge detail in feasibility in the U.S. where local people expect to have a big say in land use because of home rule laws or just practical politics in a representative democracy.
Not to say undergrounded pressurized conduits are without problems or the superior technology: much more expensive and much harder to service and replace if there are faults: must be dug up and replaced instead of just wires or towers being fairly quickly repaired.
Sorry if you did touch on that detail: article very long and I may have missed it.
Ultra-high-voltage DC transmission usually runs on those big lattice towers you see standing in mountain ranges or out past the suburbs. Inside cities, they switch to different tower types — underground lines aren't great because they're hard to repair and not particularly safe.
the piece about the interconnection queue is the one that hits hardest for AI. the US datacenter buildout is essentially queued behind transmission reform that has been stalled for a decade. China built the grid for centralized industrial load first, then found that the same infrastructure runs 100MW+ datacenters without asking permission from five utility commissions.
not saying the authoritarian shortcut is good policy, but the AI infrastructure gap and the grid gap are the same gap.
Please don't call the China's power lines as "grid"... they are just some "fixed-directional" pipelines..
The author's impression maybe fit China 1990s.. but clearly not 2020s... when the central government (re-)created every order.. including the approval right of almost every generation resources...
"local government more willing to build its own generation"?
Why not? The key issue whether they "can or not", not "willing or not"...
https://dialogue.earth/en/energy/local-protectionism-is-not-a-major-barrier-to-chinas-renewables-2/